Would it be possible for a modern world to arise where it was not how a people defined themselves that determined states, but whose sword arm was more powerful?
WI: A world without nationalism as a political movement?
- Thread starter SavoyTruffle
- Start date
yourworstnightmare
Banned
We would have more States with mixed ethnicity and religion. The State would probably be weaker, since there is little identification with the State, and thus not much loyalty. People would probably not care very much which State they belong to.
I could very easily see a world without the Enlightenment heading down this path.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
And since States would not have a loyal population they would not build much infrastructure, instead invest in an armed force to hold their population in check.
Religion would probably play a large role, since people need to identify themselves as something.
Religion would probably play a large role, since people need to identify themselves as something.
Exactly. Before the rise of nationalism confession was a bigger unifier.
Yeah. Shame about Wilson and balkanizing Eastern Europe.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Would probably also mean unifying languages would not really kick in, and local dialects would be a lot stronger.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
means the Great Osman, Great Bismarck, Great Austrian Man, Great Russia, the Great Limey, and all the Great personalities shall be pleased
means the Great Osman, Great Bismarck, Great Habsburg, Great Russia, the Great Limey, and all the Great personalities shall be pleased
Fixed. And I agree.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Except Bismark, no German unification.
Hmm... this could actually means no French Revolution, since it happened due to a french bourgeois proto- nationalism, which would mean SURVIVING HRE!!!!
Hmm... this could actually means no French Revolution, since it happened due to a french bourgeois proto- nationalism, which would mean SURVIVING HRE!!!!
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Not as a result of an nationalist uprising anyways. Liberalism would probably be weak, since it was in a symbiosis with nationalism at first. And without a strong nation there's nothing to liberate anyways.which means no Greece.
Again, a world without the combination of the ideas of the Enlightenment as well as the rising power of the bourgeois in France will result in no French Revolution like in OTL.
SavoyTruffle, prepare for death threats from Susano...
Seriously, though, I suspect there will be more geographic/cultural/religious based ideologies instead.
Seriously, though, I suspect there will be more geographic/cultural/religious based ideologies instead.
Rome didn't really have nationalism, although they did have the Romanitas cultural package, and they built infrastructure.
One can be just as loyal to a dynasty or a geographic region as one can be to an ethnicity, so building a medieval police state rather than roads isn't necessary.
The first stirrings of French national identity were during the 100 Years' War.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Ah, but a nation doesn't necessary have to correspond with a ethnic group. There's no Swiss ethnicity, but there's a Swiss nation and Swiss nationalism. There could well have been Habsburg nationalism or Ottoman nationalism. It would still be nationalism, and that's what we want to avoid.
archaeogeek
Banned
"Inheritors of Rome" could and was also at times considered a "quasi nationalist" thing for a lot of regions which retained roman-inspired law (even those which adopted customary law systems). Plus you also have "tribal" identities, religious, dynastic, geographic, etc. The only problem with dynastic and religious is that unlike "tribal", "regional" and "successor of $empire", they would go away with any enlightenment.
(fixed)
Last edited:
I'm talking about the Roman Empire itself.
Why would the Enlightenment get rid of tribal and "successor of empire" identities?
Nationalism is considered something that came with the Enlightenment and it's basically tribalism writ very large.
The Enlightenment might impinge on religion, especially the more easily-disproven superstitious varieties thereof, but I don't see how it would destroy "tribal" and "successor" ideas.
archaeogeek
Banned
Er, that was me making a huge typo - i meant enlightenment would weaken religious and dynastic identity.